Ram Leaks Images Of New Range Extended Ramcharger Model

[go-ram]

If the vehicle has an gas engine running doing anything I fail to see how they could be allowed to call it an EV.
This should be against any federal mandates and this eget treated like a normal truck since it is still an ICE truck imo.

And what a choice, an gas engine vs diesel and one that's going to likely cause a bunch of emission. This is either a genius or completely stupid move, time will tell.
I wonder how much gas you are going to spend to get a tiny tiny charge into that big battery. Maybe extra 50 miles on a 23 gallon tank, that will surely save you money...

.
You're right, time will tell, but I'm betting time will show that it's genius, not stupid.
.
Ram's reveal of the Ramcharger states that once the EV battery is depleted after the first 140 miles, the truck can go another 540 miles on the 27-gallon tank of gasoline, which means that in generator mode it effectively gets 20 MPG - not bad for a truck rated to tow 14,000 lbs and has 2600 lb payload.
.
There's not really much difference between a Ramcharger with an onboard gasoline-powered electrical generator compared to a Tesla or other full BEV (battery electric vehicle) charging their batteries from the grid in, say, California, where 45% of the electricity is produced by fossil fuels. Most families' use-case of a half-ton pickup is daily driving near home, and the Ramcharger's 140 miles in battery mode will cover 80% of most family-hauler usage, and a healthy percentage of work trucks, too. So in that regard, the Ramcharger stands a good chance of significantly reducing tailpipe emissions compared to a regular ICE truck of the same capacity.
.
In California, which is one of the worst-case states, money-wise (roughly $0.30/kWh), the electricity to charge the 92 kWh battery would be around $28, which is $0.20/mile for energy cost in EV mode. In generator mode it gets 20 MPG, in CA that gallon of 87-octane regular gasoline will cost around $5.50 today, which equates to $0.28/mile for energy cost in generator mode. So in CA today (Nov, 2023), for the estimates just given by Ram for the 2025 Ramcharger 1500 pickup, it would be 30% cheaper per mile for energy/fuel costs to run it in EV mode as compared to generator mode. And if your employer lets you charge at work for free, it could be closer to 90% cheaper for you in energy/fuel cost per mile.
.
Then you add in the benefits of the truck being a power source for electrically-operated tools on jobsites or campsites, powering your home during electrical outages, in some cases saving one from buying Tesla Powerwall to complement the solar panels on one's roof (because the Ramcharger's EV battery is really just a mobile Powerwall).
.
So the Ramcharger will, in the majority of use-cases in America be: (1) significantly cheaper per mile for energy/fuel costs, (2) significantly fewer tailpipe emissions, (3) a very handy mobile power station.
.
Sounds like genius to me. To the point that I'm already planning on trading-in my EcoDiesel when the Ramcharger is available.
.

 

[TampaLaramie]

.
Sounds like genius to me. To the point that I'm already planning on trading-in my EcoDiesel when the Ramcharger is available.
.

Its funny how diesel is so much more efficient with power output. But the EPA says “black sut bad!” So that design here in the US is not widespread. Other countries have diesels in everything.

Hydrogen is another one. EPA says “I make no money on this!” So theres no production and significant research on this either. Im trying to find the clip but I saw an interview with Elon on Rogan’s podcast that he said the EPA told him to stop research and development. Cummins also said they’re researching a 15L hydrogen engine. I think Hydrogen is the way for 18-wheelers. I’ll wait for more Hydrogen development before I quit the diesel era.

 

[Andymax]

Its funny how diesel is so much more efficient with power output. But the EPA says “black sut bad!” So that design here in the US is not widespread. Other countries have diesels in everything.

Hydrogen is another one. EPA says “I make no money on this!” So theres no production and significant research on this either. Im trying to find the clip but I saw an interview with Elon on Rogan’s podcast that he said the EPA told him to stop research and development. Cummins also said they’re researching a 15L hydrogen engine. I think Hydrogen is the way for 18-wheelers. I’ll wait for more Hydrogen development before I quit the diesel era.

Many of those countries running diesel are trying desperately to get rid of it. In Germany for example, most major cities do not allow older diesels in their downtown areas anymore, and the federal government there is squeezing the emissions so tight that most manufacturers are killing diesels as an option. I have friends there that own diesels and they say they have to keep them because the market is so bad for them.

Regarding Hydrogen...I totally agree. There is a lot of promise with this technology. And I also agree that monetization is the key that is holding it back.

 

[O'Town Ram]

But the EPA says “black sut bad!” So that design here in the US is not widespread. Other countries have diesels in everything.

Hopefully everyone thinks "black soot is bad".

 

[TampaLaramie]

Sut, soot.. that’s my tired brain from dealing with my newborn every 2 hours last night.

Yes soot is bad. But diesel makes so much torque and is a great platform for efficiency. If it’s really that big of a problem, I would think that there would be a rush to replace all the 18-wheeler trucks. Combined, those are polluting far more than our passenger trucks.

 

[go-ram]

Sut, soot.. that’s my tired brain from dealing with my newborn every 2 hours last night.

Yes soot is bad. But diesel makes so much torque and is a great platform for efficiency. If it’s really that big of a problem, I would think that there would be a rush to replace all the 18-wheeler trucks. Combined, those are polluting far more than our passenger trucks.

.
It's definitely a good thing to clean up diesel exhaust, it's really nasty stuff if left raw. It's expensive to clean up, and a pain to maintain, but NOBODY, no living being, should ever breathe diesel exhaust.
.
Interestingly, most modern "GDI" (gasoline direct injection) engines in cars emit far more soot these days than do the modern diesels in our light & HD pickups. If the gov't wasn't pushing so hard for EVs & hoping that will get rid of gasoline engines quickly, I guarantee you that within ten years every gasoline-engine car would also have a "GPF" (gasoline particulate filter).
.
Medically speaking, all soot that small (< 2 microns) from any source is a genuine health threat, to anything that breathes it in. The smaller particles eventually get pulled deep into the lungs, and the lungs can't clean those small particles out, so the soot (or any small particle of any material) sit there and build up on the very tender tissues inside the lungs and can eventually cause breathing difficulties and even cancer in some individuals. So as unattractive as DPF is to we diesel owners, controlling soot is WAY better than the alternative, which is losing the ability to breathe properly for a significant percentage of humans.
.

 

[go-ram]

Many of those countries running diesel are trying desperately to get rid of it. In Germany for example, most major cities do not allow older diesels in their downtown areas anymore, and the federal government there is squeezing the emissions so tight that most manufacturers are killing diesels as an option. I have friends there that own diesels and they say they have to keep them because the market is so bad for them.

Regarding Hydrogen...I totally agree. There is a lot of promise with this technology. And I also agree that monetization is the key that is holding it back.

.
Agreed, but hydrogen production and distribution has all kinds of downsides, like every single energy technology mankind has ever discovered or developed. Best case is extracting it from the earth, supposedly the next best is via electrolyzers powered by solar panels or wind turbines, then hydrogen made from steam-reforming of methane with accompanying "carbon sequestration", a few other ways to accumulate hydrogen, and the absolute worst case is making hydrogen via electrolyzers powered by coal-fired electric plants. So even though hydrogen has benign tailpipe emissions, in the big picture producing & distributing hydrogen can be a net environmental negative - it all depends on exactly how the hydrogen is produced.
.
FWIW, the current administration just made $7 billion available to construct seven new "hydrogen hubs" across the US in order to increase the hydrogen supply. I'm absolutely no fan of the current administration, and I don't know if that will be money well spent or not, I'm just reporting on what I read in the news in the past week. Here's the CNBC story I saw, I'm sure there are similar stories by other news outlets. (the link says "MSN" but the article was written by CNBC): MSN
.

 

[go-ram]

Its funny how diesel is so much more efficient with power output. But the EPA says “black sut bad!” So that design here in the US is not widespread. Other countries have diesels in everything.

.
I always wanted a diesel-electric pickup, for the very reason you cite: Diesel engines are significantly more fuel-efficient. But by the time one pays for all of the emissions gear necessary to make diesels viable in today's world, there is very rarely a reasonable economic payback for diesel engines in light-duty vehicles. Performance-wise, diesels rock. Cost-wise, not so much.
.

 

[TampaLaramie]

.
I always wanted a diesel-electric pickup, for the very reason you cite: Diesel engines are significantly more fuel-efficient. But by the time one pays for all of the emissions gear necessary to make diesels viable in today's world, there is very rarely a reasonable economic payback for diesel engines in light-duty vehicles. Performance-wise, diesels rock. Cost-wise, not so much.
.

Yeah, the ED is more of a convenience to have instant torque right at idle. Plus the MPG’s, the extra $2200 is worth it.

Thank god for cow urine to clean my DPF. What would we do without the EPA?

 

[go-ram]

Thank god for cow urine to clean my DPF. What would we do without the EPA?

.
Yes, the EPA can be a pain. But one thing to think about is, if the automakers had been truly responsible from the beginning and worked on making vehicle tailpipe emissions better on their own, the EPA might never have been formed.
.
IMO, it's a matter of "personal responsibility" to be 100% responsible for your own success, which includes cleaning up any mess you made while making yourself successful. Personal responsibility, corporate responsibility - all the same thing.
.
The automakers failed that aspect miserably, hence a new gov't agency was formed to force them to do what they SHOULD have done on their own - clean up their emissions.
.
Apparently you live in Tampa, based on your alias "TampaLaramie". If so, you get ocean breezes that blow away accumulated air pollution of all types. Interior valleys don't have that nicety, so air pollution builds up in the interior valleys. When I was a kid, the air smelled like exhaust all the time, it was a hazy brownish-gray color, and on some days it made our eyes sting.
.
So, yeah, you can hate on the EPA, and many times that's justified, but if you truly are honest with yourself, you should also hate on the corporations that failed THEIR responsibilities to we customers, essentially bringing the EPA upon themselves. Me? I despise all forms of personal irresponsibility, and I call it out every time I witness it.
.

 

[Darksteel165]

.
Yes, the EPA can be a pain. But one thing to think about is, if the automakers had been truly responsible from the beginning and worked on making vehicle tailpipe emissions better on their own, the EPA might never have been formed.
.
IMO, it's a matter of "personal responsibility" to be 100% responsible for your own success, which includes cleaning up any mess you made while making yourself successful. Personal responsibility, corporate responsibility - all the same thing.
.
The automakers failed that aspect miserably, hence a new gov't agency was formed to force them to do what they SHOULD have done on their own - clean up their emissions.
.
Apparently you live in Tampa, based on your alias "TampaLaramie". If so, you get ocean breezes that blow away accumulated air pollution of all types. Interior valleys don't have that nicety, so air pollution builds up in the interior valleys. When I was a kid, the air smelled like exhaust all the time, it was a hazy brownish-gray color, and on some days it made our eyes sting.
.
So, yeah, you can hate on the EPA, and many times that's justified, but if you truly are honest with yourself, you should also hate on the corporations that failed THEIR responsibilities to we customers, essentially bringing the EPA upon themselves. Me? I despise all forms of personal irresponsibility, and I call it out every time I witness it.
.

What about factories?
Ever see the smoke stack on those suckers?

Government keeps the pressure on the consumer not the big companies making majority of the waste.

 

[TampaLaramie]

That’s my point. If it was that big of a concern, there would be more regulation on semi’s. I understand what you’re saying @go-ram but my point is diesel is a great engine design that isn’t pushed to its potential. EPA is the most useless agency alongside the FBI with their bullsht lately.

 

[Darksteel165]

That’s my point. If it was that big of a concern, there would be more regulation on semi’s. I understand what you’re saying @go-ram but my point is diesel is a great engine design that isn’t pushed to its potential. EPA is the most useless agency alongside the FBI with their bullsht lately.

They would say something like "we can't force regulations on the semis as the truckers would go on strike and out country cease to work"
The regular people can't protest of vote on these stupid regulation they are forcing on car manufacturers.

This new Ram "EV" should have a diesel engine as a generator if anything, but it still doesn't make sense as you are using nearly the same amount of actual fuel and it's lossy generation.

Needing to put fuel into an EV defeats the purpose of it imo.

They should of just made a true Hybrid Diesel that allows either or both engines to power the truck at once and get like 1,000+ mile range on it. That would actually be attractive because you could just run fuel if you need distance and charge up eventually when you can stop. Maybe a higher power diesel engine that can move the truck and charge the battery at the same time until the battery has a good charge (50+%?) and then switch back to EV.
If I still drove a lot I would buy that in a heartbeat. As it makes sense.

Changing fuel to electricity doesn't make sense in this world and it never will for the next 50-100 years of battery technology.

All we have done is make batteries smaller, increase capacity, and reduce charging time in turn for heat. We have not been able to make high capacity batteries, that charge extremely quickly, and have high endurance. Gallium Nitride chargers are one of these recent advances that allow for faster charging, using less electricity, and less heat generation (which prolongs the life of batteries) but as far as I know these are still small scale. I do see some articles from 2023 at some work on an 800V GaN charger for EVs but even that shows nothing will even attempt to go into production until 2027 (and likely will get pushed further out)

 

[TampaLaramie]

They should have just made a true Hybrid Diesel that allows either or both engines to power the truck at once and get like 1,000+ mile range on it.

Bingo.

Changing fuel to electricity doesn't make sense in this world and it never will for the next 50-100 years of battery technology.

Agree 1,000%.

 

[go-ram]

What about factories?
Ever see the smoke stack on those suckers?

Government keeps the pressure on the consumer not the big companies making majority of the waste.

.
There is a lot of truth in what you way, the consumer is the easiest target . Still, they do go after factory emissions, too, and all of the diesel trucks in CA have all had DPFs and require DEF for many years now.
.

 

[go-ram]

They would say something like "we can't force regulations on the semis as the truckers would go on strike and out country cease to work"
The regular people can't protest of vote on these stupid regulation they are forcing on car manufacturers.

This new Ram "EV" should have a diesel engine as a generator if anything, but it still doesn't make sense as you are using nearly the same amount of actual fuel and it's lossy generation.

Needing to put fuel into an EV defeats the purpose of it imo.

They should of just made a true Hybrid Diesel that allows either or both engines to power the truck at once and get like 1,000+ mile range on it. That would actually be attractive because you could just run fuel if you need distance and charge up eventually when you can stop. Maybe a higher power diesel engine that can move the truck and charge the battery at the same time until the battery has a good charge (50+%?) and then switch back to EV.
If I still drove a lot I would buy that in a heartbeat. As it makes sense.

Changing fuel to electricity doesn't make sense in this world and it never will for the next 50-100 years of battery technology.

.
I agree, my top choice would be a diesel-electric hybrid. But because diesels are so expensive to build and maintain, and heavier, a diesel-electric hybrid doesn't really make as much sense for a light-duty vehicle, whereas diesel-electric makes plenty of sense for heavy-duty vehicles.
.
You're not quite accurate when you say it can't ever make sense to turn fuel into electricity, it all depends on the use-case and the overall implementation. First, the thermal efficiency of gas-turbine-powered gensets (~50%) is much higher than the average over-the-road vehicle's engine (~30%) including the loss of converting the mechanical power of the gas turbine into electricity via a generator (most modern electric generators and motors are 95% efficient). Second, the overall energy conversion efficiency of today's EVs is roughly 3 times the efficiency of any ICE vehicle on the road today.
.
Of course the best case in terms of overall thermal efficiency and environmental-friendliness is hydro-power charging an EV battery. If one lives in a state with lots of hydro power, that's great, it's the best we can do today. I would guess that second-best today is charging one's EV or plug-in-hybrid using one's own rooftop solar panels.
.
As one example of where even the gasoline-powered generator in the 2025 Ramcharger can make legitimate sense, California currently gets 45% of its electricity from fossil-fueled generating plants (mostly gas-turbine gensets running on natural gas), and 55% comes from "non-fossil-fuel sources" (hydro, solar, wind, nuclear). ALL of those electrical generation methods are significantly more thermally efficient than any engine in any over-the-road vehicle, and their exhaust emissions are monitored constantly and managed by professionals for peak efficiency. So if a person normally drives an average of less than, say, 100 miles per day for their commute and in-town errands, because (a) in EV mode the vehicle is 3 times more energy-efficient than a regular ICE vehicle, and (b) the majority of their EV charging from the grid is from "non-fossil-fuel sources", then yes, in the big picture, the planet would be better off if someone like me drives a Ramcharger every day rather than my current EcoDiesel.
.
Yes, in generator mode the Ramcharger is not as thermally efficient nor as environmentally friendly as when it runs in EV mode, but even in generator mode it IS more efficient and environmentally friendly than the same truck with the same 3.6 L v6 with conventional mechanical drivetrain. Why? Because in the Ramcharger the 3.6 L v6 is optimized to run at a steady-state RPM, which makes it significantly more efficient and less polluting than a regular ICE vehicle's engine constantly changing speed, and because the electric motors put the power to the road at 3X the efficiency of the ICE 3.6 L truck with automatic transmission and mechanical axles, driveshafts and transfer case.
.
Add to that the convenience of having a truck that can power just about any electrically-operated tool on the jobsite, power a campsite, and in power outages can power a home, for a large percentage of Americans' use-cases, a half-ton truck like the proposed Ramcharger absolutely make sense, for the owner and for the environment.

 

[habu987]

.
I agree, my top choice would be a diesel-electric hybrid. But because diesels are so expensive to build and maintain, and heavier, a diesel-electric hybrid doesn't really make as much sense for a light-duty vehicle, whereas diesel-electric makes plenty of sense for heavy-duty vehicles.
.
You're not quite accurate when you say it can't ever make sense to turn fuel into electricity, it all depends on the use-case and the overall implementation. First, the thermal efficiency of gas-turbine-powered gensets (~50%) is much higher than the average over-the-road vehicle's engine (~30%) including the loss of converting the mechanical power of the gas turbine into electricity via a generator (most modern electric generators and motors are 95% efficient). Second, the overall energy conversion efficiency of today's EVs is roughly 3 times the efficiency of any ICE vehicle on the road today.
.
Of course the best case in terms of overall thermal efficiency and environmental-friendliness is hydro-power charging an EV battery. If one lives in a state with lots of hydro power, that's great, it's the best we can do today. I would guess that second-best today is charging one's EV or plug-in-hybrid using one's own rooftop solar panels.
.
As one example of where even the gasoline-powered generator in the 2025 Ramcharger can make legitimate sense, California currently gets 45% of its electricity from fossil-fueled generating plants (mostly gas-turbine gensets running on natural gas), and 55% comes from "non-fossil-fuel sources" (hydro, solar, wind, nuclear). ALL of those electrical generation methods are significantly more thermally efficient than any engine in any over-the-road vehicle, and their exhaust emissions are monitored constantly and managed by professionals for peak efficiency. So if a person normally drives an average of less than, say, 100 miles per day for their commute and in-town errands, because (a) in EV mode the vehicle is 3 times more energy-efficient than a regular ICE vehicle, and (b) the majority of their EV charging from the grid is from "non-fossil-fuel sources", then yes, in the big picture, the planet would be better off if someone like me drives a Ramcharger every day rather than my current EcoDiesel.
.
Yes, in generator mode the Ramcharger is not as thermally efficient nor as environmentally friendly as when it runs in EV mode, but even in generator mode it IS more efficient and environmentally friendly than the same truck with the same 3.6 L v6 with conventional mechanical drivetrain. Why? Because in the Ramcharger the 3.6 L v6 is optimized to run at a steady-state RPM, which makes it significantly more efficient and less polluting than a regular ICE vehicle's engine constantly changing speed, and because the electric motors put the power to the road at 3X the efficiency of the ICE 3.6 L truck with automatic transmission and mechanical axles, driveshafts and transfer case.
.
Add to that the convenience of having a truck that can power just about any electrically-operated tool on the jobsite, power a campsite, and in power outages can power a home, for a large percentage of Americans' use-cases, a half-ton truck like the proposed Ramcharger absolutely make sense, for the owner and for the environment.

And on top of that, the 20mpg in ICE mode is likely substantially better than what an equivalent Pentastar model would get.

As you can see in my sig, my truck was a porker (~5800lb curb weight pre-tonneau cover) and got under 18mpg lifetime hand calced with a light foot over a roughly 60/40 mix of highway/city. My best tank was 20.3 on a 65-75mph drive from Cleveland to DC.

Toss in another guesstimated 500 lbs on top of that to match the equivalent Ramcharger's weight and I'd be shocked if a Pentastar Ram that hefty would get more than 17mpg highway.

 

[nc_beagle]

Not sure if I've seen the answer to this, but in this scenario...

You start with 145 (or whatever the number is,) drive it a while, say down to 30, the engine kicks in to charge the battery--I assume it charges beyond what the vehicle expends.

How far does it recharge while you're still using it? 80%? 100%?

 

[go-ram]

Not sure if I've seen the answer to this, but in this scenario...

You start with 145 (or whatever the number is,) drive it a while, say down to 30, the engine kicks in to charge the battery--I assume it charges beyond what the vehicle expends.

How far does it recharge while you're still using it? 80%? 100%?

.
That's a great question, I wonder if Ram will answer it some day.
.
Ram says using a 350 kW charger at 400 volts it can add 50 miles to the battery in 10 minutes. 50 miles would be ~34% of the EV battery's capacity (50/145=0.34). The normal output of the "gen-set" (i.e. the 3.6 L gas v6 turning the electrical generator) is 130 kW, and the Ramcharger's EV battery is 92 kWh, which would seem to indicate the genset could recharge the battery in less than an hour, if there was no load being placed on the battery.
.
I'd bet the limiting factor is not the output of the genset - under normal driving the genset should have enough output to both recharge the EV battery while driving, and then some. Rather, it is likely to be the thermal control in the battery that limits the charging rate. If it's a hot day, and the truck has been driven hard so the EV battery itself is hot, I'm guessing they would have to throttle back the charging rate so as to not overheat the EV battery. I have read that the EV battery is liquid-cooled, which certainly helps, but under hard driving, the EV battery thermals will be the limiting factor.
.
I read in one article this past week that the Ramcharger's genset can put out 190 kW peak for brief periods (like full-throttle acceleration, or pulling a steep hill with a load in the bed or towing). Also, at peak output, the genset can be charging the EV battery while simultaneously pushing a portion of its electrical power output directly to the drive motors. Again, only for brief periods, but it's nice to know that extra kick is available when you need it.
.
Time will tell of course, but everything I've read so far about the Ramcharger makes me think Ram really did its homework with the engineering of Ramcharger's chassis and drive system.
.

 

[go-ram]

I see what you are saying; but it's the Ram emblem up high and not in the middle of the grille that I do not like.

Like so

View attachment 170687

More equidistant from top to bottom.

.
Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Since your post I've been paying more attention to trucks I see on the road, and I notice that GMC has at times had the letters centered in the grill, and at times higher up on the grill. But right now Ram is going with tying the Ram letters into the "tuning fork" LED signature "running lights", as emphasized on the concept version of the Ram Revolution truck last year.
.
They all have their plusses and minuses, but to this old fart's eye, I prefer the styling of the Rams and the GMCs first, then Chevy, dead-last to my eyes is Ford's styling. No, I take that back. Dead-last are the Toyotas, in particular the current Tundra.
.